You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED...
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.

The Third Depatment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined questions of fact had been raised about governmental immunity and tort liability arising from contract in a property-damage case arising from road renovation work. Village officials and the contractor hired to do the road work (Merritt) decided to allow what was thought to be a small water leak to remain unaddressed temporarily. The leak was apparently created when a fire hydrant was removed to accommodate the road work. At some point the water main burst, causing flooding and a mudslide which damaged plaintiffs' property. The questions before the court were whether the village should be allowed to amend its answer with a governmental-immunity affirmative defense, and whether an indemnification cross-claim against the contractor (Merritt) by the village should have been allowed. The Third Department answered both questions in the affirmative. Although maintenance of a water system for fire protection is a governmental function to which immunity applies, maintenance of the water system generally is a proprietary function, to which immunity would not apply. With respect to Merritt, although tort liability does not usually arise from a contract, here there was a question of fact whether Merritt “launched an instrument of harm” which would trigger liability in tort. With respect to whether governmental immunity applied, the court explained:

A threshold inquiry in determining if a municipality is entitled to immunity in a negligence action is “whether the municipal entity was engaged in a proprietary function or acted in a governmental capacity at the time the claim arose” … . Where the alleged negligence arose out of proprietary, rather than governmental acts, no immunity will attach and a municipality will generally be liable to the same extent as a private actor … . The maintenance of a municipal water system to provide water for the private use of residents has been deemed to be a proprietary function … . However, where the alleged negligence stems from municipal efforts to protect the safety of the public by “aggregating and supplying water for the extinguishment of fires,” it is engaged in a government function entitled to immunity … . These established rules can present challenges as applied to modern municipal water systems that are used to provide water to both homes and hydrants … . In such cases, where a municipality can be seen to be serving dual governmental and proprietary roles, we must look to “the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred” … . Billera v Merritt Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02503, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

MUNCIPAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETARY ACTS WERE INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURST WATER MAIN)/TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)/NEGLIGENCE  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ROAD-WORK CONTRACTOR LIABLE IN TORT FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM)

You might also like
Claimant Was an Employee of an Outfit Which Advertises for Security Guards on Craigslist
Neglect for Allowing Children to Be Driven by Intoxicated Driver.
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS WARNED THE USE OF DRUGS WHILE ON FURLOUGH WOULD RESULT IN AN ENHANCED SENTENCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
Leased Right-of-Way Was an Easement Appurtenant Which Can Only Be Extinguished by Abandonment, Conveyance, Condemnation or Adverse Possession
Pyrotechnician Was Not an Employee
ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

12 TO 18 INCH FALL SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE...